• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Ask a physicist anything. (5)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Question: Could Hans-Quido Mutke have actually been the first to break the sound barrier on April 9, 1945, in his Me 262?
Theoretically possible, though it's more likely his instrumentation malfunctioned at high subsonic speeds, giving the illusion of exceeding Mach 1.

WC, is it true the moon is moving away from the earth? If so how much per year? And is it a constant? Thanks.
What muzungu said. For comparison, it moves away about as fast as your fingernails grow. That's slow, but since it's been around for a few billion years, it's original size would have been enourmous. I wish I could have seen the first Moon-rise
 
Upvote 0

Maxwell511

Contributor
Jun 12, 2005
6,073
260
41
Utah County
✟23,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Weeeell... there are two problems with that. First, I'm pretty sure I lack most of the mathematical background needed to understand something like that.

According to Penrose the formulas are there just to show you. He alleges that he will explain them properly. I don't think he does, however I could be stupid, or overly pedantic. There is really good parts of the book that you don't need to understand the equations to understand the meaning and for just this I would recommend the book.


Unless it is my own equation it takes me days/weeks to understand a formula. That is at best, somethings it takes way longer or never. I'm, apparently, actually good at maths compared to other academics in my research group and department. Not understanding maths is not a sign that you are bad at it, it is just I sign that you are thinking about it. Which is a good thing IMO.

Don't let that make you avoid it*.

*Unless, of course, it eats into your more important academic time.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
WC, is it true the moon is moving away from the earth? If so how much per year? And is it a constant? Thanks.
The Moon recedes by approximately 33mm per year, which in turn lengthens the day by about 25ms per year. This aren't constant, however; these figures are double what they were about half a billion years ago.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟23,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Cool! (Now I need to figure out if I can get it)

Unless it is my own equation it takes me days/weeks to understand a formula. That is at best, somethings it takes way longer or never.
So good to know I'm not alone.

I'm, apparently, actually good at maths compared to other academics in my research group and department. Not understanding maths is not a sign that you are bad at it, it is just I sign that you are thinking about it. Which is a good thing IMO.
Well, I got 6/7 in IB Higher maths, so I never thought I was bad at it. My learning style is just not well suited to studying it from books
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Could life have evolved on earth without the moon to act as an impact shield?
Yes - the Moon was useful, but not imperative. There could be planets whose chemistry is far more conducive to life and allows for more rapid evolution, so 'normal' asteroid bombardment wouldn't be as lethal as it is to Terran life.
 
Upvote 0

Maxwell511

Contributor
Jun 12, 2005
6,073
260
41
Utah County
✟23,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
My learning style is just not well suited to studying it from books

It is a notation thing IMO, it is not an inefficacy within the student. Different fields of mathematics and different fields of science and engineering have different notations for the same mathematical ideas.

It is good that these different notations exist because these notations reflect what it is important to that field about the mathematical concept. However this creates a major problem to those trying to studying it from a different perspective. It is not that you are not suited to studying maths from books, it is that books are rarely written for "outsiders" to learn from. This is including undergraduate books. There are undergraduate maths books for mathematicians, there are ones for engineers, there are ones for physicists, there are ones for chemists etc*. The notation can be extremely different for different fields.

For example the difference between my understanding and notation of Maxwell's equations** and that of say Wiccan_Child would be very measurable. I would go for the sensible vector notation, he would probably be using tensor notation which is gibberish.

*I believe you are a biologist which means you are kinda screwed. As far as I know there are no maths books for biologists. Cos biologists don't do maths as much.

** James Clerk Maxwell was the greatest physicist that ever existed. He unified electricity and magnetism. Just felt that needed to be said.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟23,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
For example the difference between my understanding and notation of Maxwell's equations** and that of say Wiccan_Child would be very measurable.
Interesting observations.

I would go for the sensible vector notation, he would probably be using tensor notation which is gibberish.
Haha, I'm with you on that one. Vectors are neat.

*I believe you are a biologist which means you are kinda screwed. As far as I know there are no maths books for biologists. Cos biologists don't do maths as much.
Maybe not as much as physicists, but it's far from insignificant. For example, many people in evolutionary biology and ecology play with mathematical models. I don't, but I've tried to understand the theory behind phylogenetic analysis, since phylogenies are fairly important in evo-devo... let's just say that after wrestling with what was supposed to be a great textbook on the theory, I settled for an informal understanding

** James Clerk Maxwell was the greatest physicist that ever existed. He unified electricity and magnetism. Just felt that needed to be said.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Do you believe in the big bang theory? Or do you have a different explanation of how the universe came to be?
Yes, I believe in the Big Bang theory. It's worth mentioning that it doesn't, and isn't meant to, explain the origin of the universe, merely what it's been doing for the past 13.5 billion years. For all we know, the universe could be trillions of years old.
 
Upvote 0

Maxwell511

Contributor
Jun 12, 2005
6,073
260
41
Utah County
✟23,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Maybe not as much as physicists, but it's far from insignificant. For example, many people in evolutionary biology and ecology play with mathematical models.

My area of research was complex systems and, as you may or not know, ecological systems are very complex. There is great mathematical models for biological systems. The problem is that it is not biologists making these models, it is basically physicists. Physicists don't really understand the nature of biological systems therefore these models are generally terrible. The hope would be that biologists will listen to the physicists and start taking control of their area.

Seriously, Per Bak once said to Stephen Gould "would it not be nice to have a theory for punctuated equilibrium?" Gould was of the impression that PE was a theory. Bak was of the opinion that such attitudes were quaint and that biologists should get a cookie and let the actual scientists do their work. As a biologist, are you going to take that poop from physicists? I personally wouldn't stand for that and I say learn maths.

I believe you are doing a doctorate? That you are a training academic, right? If you are not I sorry for what I am about to say*:

Get a sense of your ovaries, women. You must develop your understanding of a topic not someone else's understanding of a topic. If you believe that not understanding a topic, after reading one person's understanding, is sufficient reason for you to give up....you are either an uneducate undergraduate or an idiot. If you didn't understand that book, read a book on the same topic by someone else and so on and so on. You may never understand any of the books fully, but if you read different perspectives of the same idea and think about them you will form your understanding. Your understanding is the whole point of you being an academic.

As an academic there is nothing that you cannot understand in your own way. If you disbelieve this, I would have to suggest you grow a pair of ovaries and then think about what you apparently could never understand.

Seriously being academic is about thinking; "I don't understand this, but I will figure out ways so that I can get an understanding of it". It is not, "I read one book that I didn't understand, therefore "f" that."

From all the posts I have read from you in this forum, I believe that you can do this. Please just have more confidence in yourself.

*If you are than listen to me**.

**I am an idiot so maybe not listening would be better.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

1611AV

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.
May 1, 2010
1,154
47
Florida
✟24,157.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Then there is really no way of ever knowing the original origin, Scientifically speaking. Because we can only go back to the last bang. Is that fair?
 
Upvote 0

1611AV

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.
May 1, 2010
1,154
47
Florida
✟24,157.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What muzungu said. For comparison, it moves away about as fast as your fingernails grow. That's slow, but since it's been around for a few billion years, it's original size would have been enourmous. I wish I could have seen the first Moon-rise

He said 3.8 cm per year. If this is true then at about the 1 Billion year mark would not the gravitational effect of the Earth and Moon cause destruction on the Earth? Since the gravitational effects would not be linear but exponential the closer they are.

Tidal wave and Hurricane force wind would be a understatement would they not?
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Then there is really no way of ever knowing the original origin, Scientifically speaking. Because we can only go back to the last bang. Is that fair?
No, this is not correct. All it means is that at this point in time we do not have knowledge to know what happened before time zero. Science is a never ending endeavour of finding answers to questions, of understanding all that comprises our physical world.

Also one need not be able to actually look at an event in order to prove its existence. One can do so with mathematical proof that also explains the effects of the said event.

The remnant ambient microwave radiation was mathematically predicted to exist before it was discovered and it was the proof required for the big bang theory.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.